<quoted text>really?its not rational because its not rational?you ARE going to have to do better than that...WAY better!Here are two reasons, please address them specifically:"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children,

Rose's Law:Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"

Jane Dough wrote:

it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships.

It's not an either/or situation. They can print out as many marriage application forms as needed.

Jane Dough wrote:

Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.

And that would matter if you had to be able to reproduce in order to be allowed to marry.

Jane Dough wrote:

Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary.

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

Jane Dough wrote:

It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born.

It thus could choose to offer an inducement--in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits--to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

And they still do that in states that allow gay marriage.

Jane Dough wrote:

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

Not rational at all. Sterile straight couples aren't denied the benefits of marriage.

Jane Dough wrote:

There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father.

Rose's Law...

Jane Dough wrote:

Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule--some children who never know their fathers, or their [*360] mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes--but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold."

360 mothers? No matter how a person feels about gay couples bringing up children, it's a separate issue. Gay couples can raise children without getting married, and marry without raising children.

The only *real* reason people are against gay marriage is bigotry. This bigotry can range from just being uncomfortable with the idea, to full blown homophobia. There just isn't a rational reason to be against gay marriage. People will quote the buy-bull, but that's about as far from being rational as you can get.

The questions:1. A child being raised by both biological parents is less likely to be on welfare*, drop out of school*, commit crimes* and use illegal drugs and alcohol*.*State interests. Do you agree that these are state interests?2. You really believe that adoption and divorce are not under state control?3. What are the "any number of other conditions?"

For your first question, you need proof in order for it to be a valid claim. You've not been able to prove anything you said in the past, so I'm not holding my breath.

<quoted text>Look, stupid Canadian, here's what I said:"I have kids and enjoy so many government benefits that you can't because you can't have your own kids."You can draw any conclusions you wish from that.

It's not my conclusions, you're saying that you believe no one should marry unless they currently have kids. There's no other way to ensure their marriage produces children, unless they already have kids. You don't support sterile marriage, elderly marriage, nor gay marriage.

This is what you are saying by opposing marriage without kids, Wonderbread.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.